Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,
http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/
A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."
And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.
WHY?
Trayvon's avengers
Moderator: Moderators
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #62
The hypocrisy is in the media ignoring the one story while giving non-stop coverage to Trayvon, the 'victim'.keithprosser3 wrote: What is hypocrisy?
According to the linked article, the state is to go for death penalty for the 3 killers.
The killer of Trayvon Martin was released without charge.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #64
Off the top of my head, OJ Simpson. I think they white 'killer' here acted in self-defense against a young thug with a bad history.keithprosser3 wrote: Possibly because they let a white killer go free - when did that last happen to a black man?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
keithprosser3
Post #65
I don't think OJ was released without charge - I seem to remember it did generate a fair bit of publicity at the time.
The issue - as I see it - is that white man who killed a black boy was not even charged with a crime. I don't know if GZ was justified or not - perhaps he should be acquitted.
But it is an essential principle that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done and letting a killer walk free is not 'justice seen to be done'. The reason for that principle is now playing out.
The issue - as I see it - is that white man who killed a black boy was not even charged with a crime. I don't know if GZ was justified or not - perhaps he should be acquitted.
But it is an essential principle that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done and letting a killer walk free is not 'justice seen to be done'. The reason for that principle is now playing out.
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #66
Where is the injustice when a citizen kills a criminal who is threatening him in self-defense? It happens all the time in the US, and the innnocent shooter isn't charged, that is unless the media makes a big deal out of the black aggressor. It is said in the US armed civilians justifiably stop more crimes than the police do.keithprosser3 wrote: I don't think OJ was released without charge - I seem to remember it did generate a fair bit of publicity at the time.
The issue - as I see it - is that white man who killed a black boy was not even charged with a crime. I don't know if GZ was justified or not - perhaps he should be acquitted.
But it is an essential principle that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done and letting a killer walk free is not 'justice seen to be done'. The reason for that principle is now playing out.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
keithprosser3
Post #67
You miss - or are trying to obscure - the point. GZ killed someone and was let go without facing a trial. It may well be that it was self-defence - I can accept that.
But what sort of precedent is it when a killer can simply claim 'self defence' and face no further action? More to the point, what are the circumstances where such a preposterous action as not even charging a killer could occur? Is the US subject to the rule of law or not?
It is not the inequality of the media that matters but the inequality of the way law is applied in the US. Blaming the media is misdirection.
But what sort of precedent is it when a killer can simply claim 'self defence' and face no further action? More to the point, what are the circumstances where such a preposterous action as not even charging a killer could occur? Is the US subject to the rule of law or not?
It is not the inequality of the media that matters but the inequality of the way law is applied in the US. Blaming the media is misdirection.
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #68
Yes, the law says if you are in danger of great bodily harm (Zimmerman's nose was broken) you have the right to use deadly force. What exactly do you think someone in that situation should be charged with?keithprosser3 wrote: You miss - or are trying to obscure - the point. GZ killed someone and was let go without facing a trial. It may well be that it was self-defence - I can accept that.
But what sort of precedent is it when a killer can simply claim 'self defence' and face no further action? More to the point, what are the circumstances where such a preposterous action as not even charging a killer could occur? Is the US subject to the rule of law or not?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
keithprosser3
Post #69
Manslaughter.
I think that if you kill somebody a plea or mitigation of self-defence should be allowed at your trial. You shouldn't be able to just walk away after killing someone on the strength of 'He broke my nose', even if it's true. Killing people is a serious matter.
I am trying to explain why there was a reaction to the Trayvon killing, not to condone it.
I think that if you kill somebody a plea or mitigation of self-defence should be allowed at your trial. You shouldn't be able to just walk away after killing someone on the strength of 'He broke my nose', even if it's true. Killing people is a serious matter.
I am trying to explain why there was a reaction to the Trayvon killing, not to condone it.
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #70
This killing doesn't meet the definition of manslaughter, it is pure self defense, which in my country is not a crime. In my state you are entitled to use deadly force when you are threatened with great bodily harm, which Zimmerman was. There was no reason to charge him. Really, this happens all the time. Here is a whole list of similar incidents:keithprosser3 wrote: Manslaughter.
I think that if you kill somebody a plea or mitigation of self-defence should be allowed at your trial. You shouldn't be able to just walk away after killing someone on the strength of 'He broke my nose', even if it's true. Killing people is a serious matter.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx
These people should be commended, not charged with a crime.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
